Re: [PATCH v2 01/26] genirq: add irq_domain-aware core IRQ handler

[Stephen Boyd]

On 08/26/14 11:46, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/26/14 11:07, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Digging into my email, one of the traces looked like this:
>>
>> stack backtrace:
>> CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.16.0-rc1+ #135
>> Call trace:
>> [<ffffffc0000882cc>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x12c
>> [<ffffffc000088408>] show_stack+0x10/0x1c
>> [<ffffffc0004ee5f0>] dump_stack+0x74/0xc4
>> [<ffffffc0000edfbc>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe8/0x124
>> [<ffffffc00010218c>] irq_find_mapping+0x16c/0x198
>> [<ffffffc00008130c>] gic_handle_irq+0x38/0xcc
>>
>> Most drivers call irq_find_mapping outside of irq_enter()/irq_exit(), as
>> this is in handle_IRQ().
>>
> Ah ok. This is the multi-irq handler case? Has this been broken since
> v3.2 at least for the gic users? Now that we call irq_enter()/irq_exit()
> a lot more code runs, including things like updating jiffies when
> interrupts arrive and invoking softirq? Do we only call irq_exit() on
> the IPI path otherwise?
>
> Are there any plans to send this back to stable trees? Not calling
> irq_enter()/irq_exit() when we get an interrupt seems like a big problem.
>

Hmm I see we still call handle_IRQ eventually. So it's not as bad as I
first thought.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/